No, I don't think so... There's Estonia, and there's no way you can call Estonian's "Finnish people"... even though they are culturally very close to finland, they are still a separate people - they just have the same roots.

I'm sure the Finnish and the Estonians belong to some kind of group by which you could name them, but I don't know what it is... I'll try to look it up.

I don't like how dark the space in between the continents (the bevel) has gotten. Also, the texture is not that great, it just sort of looks splotchy but not interesting, like you just had some noise then a blur.

Really? Maybe I'll keep it then, or do something similar. I'll try to adjust it to get the land are a bit lighter though. Now it's hard to tell which bonus area Åland belongs to, again... Perhaps I'll need to redo one of the bevels.

I don't see anything pressing except for maybe changing the Legend font.

Yeah, the legend font will change, after the bonuses are decided. I'm still unsure on the bonuses... nobodies (I think) gave me the values according to bonus calculator...

But I wouldn't want to make Denmark a mere +1, since it has 2 borders to defend, nobody would want to take denmark... Of course there's the +1 autodeploy, but autodeployed troops aren't as useful...

I also thought of getting rid of the autodeploy for capitals, and instead, making a new bonus structure for the capitals, where you'd get +1 for 3 capitals, +2 for 4 and so on... This would allow me to give higher bonuses to Denmark and Iceland, making holding them worthwhile...

Keep up the good work!

Thanks, I'll try to..

Also: I would really like to implement a connection between iceland and denmark, but I'm not sure how to do it so it looks good. Any suggestions?

nobodies wrote: I think you have to develope the map with a regional perspective, rather than basing the gameplay on cities, but it's just a personal thought.

Any reason for this? This is a region of europe that not many people are familiar with. I thought that the cities would at least be somewhat more recognizable than some obscure regions that nobody knows, except the few people that live in that area...

Ultimately, I would prefer to keep the cities with lines connecting them, but if that ends up being the one thing that keeps this map from moving forward, then I'll change them to territories.

I'm speaking graphically only. The map is not half bad looking. But the web of interconnecting lines looks bad. If there were only 1 or 2 routes off a city, then it might look better, but each city has like 4 or 5 routes leading off it. It starts to get too complciated.

The pattern you've changed the land to is better, but it still could be improved.

What if I were to decrease the opacity on the connecting lines, so that they would blend to the background more? Perhaps they wouldn't look so disturbing then. And decreasing connections... that would interfere with the gameplay, of course.

The pattern you've changed the land to is better, but it still could be improved.

Well to me this looks like denim. It's not bad, I guess it's different - but maybe include that long verticle glacier patch that divides norway / sweden. Or maybe play around with the Norwegian fjords or the mountain ranges - which are very familiar to people when thinking of scandanavia. Just a thought. Also - I think you've too much dark inner glow, and I think the non-play area lands (gray aresa) should be textured as well.

For this one, I played around with the blend modes & opacity of the territory connections.

Click image to enlarge.

This one is the same, but with alternate texture:

Click image to enlarge.

So, extending the texture to the non-play-areas... I'm not so sure about that. But I guess I could try it in the next version. However that will mean I will have to redo all the textures again... I didn't think to save a version of the texture where the sea & non-play-areas weren't cut off.

Okay, something with this map is really wrong. I bet it is because the mapmaker doesn't know the area he's designing. I'm from Norway and I've never heard of this Gudvagen. I googled it and found out it was a supposed to be Gudvangen, a camping site with a nice view! You can't mix up Large citys like Oslo, Stavanger (that's Stavanger without ø - one of the other wrong spelled citys, there are more as well) and freaking Lakselv(!) - it's just all wrong! It's like you make a map of USA and put Coffeyville along with citys like Chicago and New York. If you're going through with this please make sure you get some help from someone who actually knows the area. This map would annoy the hell out of me if it would come through.

I'm from Finland myself, so I know most of the area quite well... But I'm not very familiar with all the cities of Norway. It seems that my source for the city names had some misspellings. If you'd like, you'd be welcome to make a list of all Norwegian city names that are wrong, and send it to me, and I will correct them for the next version.

You have to understand this is the drafting room. It's not unheard of to have a few mistakes here and there at the drafting stage.

I appreciate you posting and pointing out flaws in the map, but if you don't like Lakselv to be included in the map, can you suggest another city in the same area that you think would fit better?

Yeah, sorry for being so harsh. I didn't know which section I was in as I found the map on a link from another forum. In stead of Lakselv I would put Hammerfest - that's supposed to be the city which lies farthest north in the world. Also it is known as the first city in Norway who got electric traffic lights

Also Bergen (the second largest city in Norway should be put in before Stavanger. They are in the same area. Mosjøen should be replaced by Bodø. And Gudvangen... well, it MUST be taken out. It's not a center at all. Trondheim could be a centrum in stead.

Other known miss spells: Lillehammar should be Lillehammer. Ålbora should be Ålborg. And I think you should find other places than at least Kolding, Mora (only known for it being the place where Vasaloppet start or ends, don't remember which) and propably Linköping. Also don't know about Arjeplog... I just have never heard of it at all. You should ask someone from Sweden and Denmark as well.

It also feels wrong to have a place like Narvik and Tromsø connect with Iceland. There are no boat that connects with Iceland. I think you should rather use airports to get to Iceland. Maybe from the capitals.

Airports... that could work... But how would you represent it graphically?

I'm all for preserving as much realism as possible, but in some situations it is necessary to sacrifice realism for gameplay. Thus I have had to use some smaller cities, particularly in the northern parts of Finland, Norway and Sweden, there are not many big cities, so if only big and meaningful cities were used, they would be too empty. And Iceland needs some connections. There may be no passenger boats going to Iceland, but both Iceland and Norway have ports.

In stead of Lakselv I would put Hammerfest - that's supposed to be the city which lies farthest north in the world.

Will do.

Also Bergen (the second largest city in Norway should be put in before Stavanger.

Doable.

Mosjøen should be replaced by Bodø.

Can do.

And Gudvangen... well, it MUST be taken out. It's not a center at all. Trondheim could be a centrum in stead.

How about replacing it with Hermansverk? It's at least a bigger city. I need a city in that area, since south Norway would be too empty without.

Lillehammar should be Lillehammer. Ålbora should be Ålborg.

Will be fixed.

you should find other places than at least Kolding, Mora (only known for it being the place where Vasaloppet start or ends, don't remember which) and propably Linköping.

Linköping will stay, as a route from Stockholm to Göteborg. I don't think there's a better alternative. Same with Arjeplog, I don't think there are any better alternatives at that area. That I know of at least.

Mora... Again, is there a better alternative? I suppose I could change it to Rättvik, but I'm not sure if it's any better. I'll look into it.

As for Kolding... How about Vejle? I did some research.. it's the same size as Kolding, but it's the "capital" of the Syddanmark region.

Airports can't be that hard. Just explain it with text that all cities with planes next to them connect. Think about Sidney Metro...

Iceland and Norway have ports, but there are no common boat routes from Narvik or Tromsø that's for sure. The only ports with real routes are in the south, like Oslo, Larvik and Sandefjord. And there's Hurtigruta that goes all along the coast from Bergen in south and all the way to Kirkenes in the north. You could put that in if you want, just check that it goes to every place that you have on the map...

Hermansverk?? Common, that's another place I've never heard of. There's NO center in the middle of southern Norway. There are just mountains and highland that makes it unnatural to have any big city connecting place with the rest of the country. If you need a center, you'll have to go with the capital Oslo in the south or Trondheim in the middle. And if you need a city in the west, you can go with Molde - but don't you dare making it a center!

You actually have the same problem in Northern Sweden. It's practically nothing there, just forest and mountains... You can't make much out of it.

Airports can't be that hard. Just explain it with text that all cities with planes next to them connect. Think about Sidney Metro...

Thing is, if I include airports, I would have to put in airports to all the capitals, and I'm not sure if that would work for the gameplay.

Hermansverk?? Common, that's another place I've never heard of. There's NO center in the middle of southern Norway. There are just mountains and highland that makes it unnatural to have any big city connecting place with the rest of the country. If you need a center, you'll have to go with the capital Oslo in the south or Trondheim in the middle. And if you need a city in the west, you can go with Molde - but don't you dare making it a center!

What do you mean by center? The territory is in no way a central position gameplay wise. It's not even a border territory.

Anyway I'm sorry if you feel offended by the inclusion of smaller cities, but the thing is, there are not enough big cities. As I explained earlier, sometimes realism needs to be sacrificed for better gameplay. If you look at some other maps, there are loads of maps that have historical or even geographical inaccuracies, but the gameplay works better that way, so that's how it is done. You need to understand, we are not making educational material here, we're trying to make maps that are fun to play.

And I will consider adding that airline connection between Copenhagen and Reykjavik. And I could also remove one of the sea connections between norway and iceland, but I think there needs to be a connection there.

Thematically this map feels a little confused... It's not quite the Nordic Countries, it's not quite Scandinavia, and it's not even all of Northern Europe

Once you've settled on a geographical focus that makes sense, then you should concentrate on the thematic direction you want to take. If you're going for connecting lines, then some sort of airport-connection map would make a bit of sense - although too many bright lines all over the place makes the map feel cluttered and congested.

There have been some pretty solid drafts of bits of Northern Europe/Scandinavia/The Balkans/The Baltics over the past couple of years - dig through the Recycling Bin for maps of these areas to see if you can find something that works more coherently

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

Well, I understand that people that votes on a map called Northern Europe wants Estonia in it. You are still missing some of Northern Europe on the map. If you call it Scandinavia and have a vote on it, you propably get a different result

You forgot my last point in the changes by the way: Skien should be exchanged by Kristiansand which is more to the south - that's a natural place to have bordering Oslo and Bergen. If you REALLY want something in the middle you could add Geilo bordering to Oslo, Bergen and Kristiandsand, but not to Trondheim or Lillehammer. Bergen could border Trondheim though.

If you call it Scandinavia and have a vote on it, you propably get a different result

Well, the vote had an option: "Remove Estonia AND rename map as Nordic Countries"... I even put in a third option - so that all those who are not really interested in the map would not skew the poll results

You forgot my last point in the changes by the way: Skien should be exchanged by Kristiansand which is more to the south - that's a natural place to have bordering Oslo and Bergen.

Will do.

If you REALLY want something in the middle you could add Geilo bordering to Oslo, Bergen and Kristiandsand, but not to Trondheim or Lillehammer. Bergen could border Trondheim though.

There's 2 issues: a) Bad location. It would make the area too crowded, all the necessary symbols and texts would not fit, at least not in the small version and b) Removing those two connections would create an unnecessary bottleneck which would be bad for the gameplay.

I think you'll just have to settle with all but one of your suggestions getting implemented. I mean, it's not like the territory is going to be a focal point of the map... Just another territory.